ON THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION AND ITS SOLUTION PROPOSALS IN 20TH CENTURY

I. INTRODUCTION

In his work “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, David Hume argues that inductive knowledge we have inferred from our perception of today’s world is only acceptable and applicable for today’s world; therefore, we could not have a generalized law independent of nature and time since it would be "beyond the present testimony of the senses, and the records of our memory" (Hume , p.108). From this postulate of Hume’s, it can be clearly seen that inductivism, to reach the scientific knowledge, is only a logical illusion. Therefore, a question arises: What is to replace inductivism once basis of scientific knowledge? Since Hume, especially in 20^th century, problem of induction is discussed thoroughly and this paper aims to discuss the solution proposals to the above problem by considering Popper/Kuhn clash particularly throughout the historical examples.

II. PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

In inductive reasoning, it is valid to attain a universal statement from observation based single logical statements. To examplify an inductive reasoning;

“Ali goes to countryside. He collects data about anthills and sees that all of the anthills are directing north. Then, Ali sets up a logical statement by inductive inference: For all P, If P is an anthill, then P is directing north. Again he goes to countryside and there he sees an anthill. Ali says that: ‘For that is an anthill, that is directing north.’ Then, takes his compass and checks, anthill is directing the north.”

Above example is modelling the inductive reasoning simply. As in our example inductive reasoning counts on observational and empiric data. For that one cannot observe or gather all data, this reasoning is deductively invalid. However, even if one can observe or gather all data, there is no evidence that makes one to believe today’s conditions(physical, etc...) will be stable and independent of nature or time, like David Hume said. So simply, there is no evidence for Ali that we will never see an anthill that is showing a direction other than north. One cannot guarantee that, say, in two hundred years time in a forest on South Germany there will not be an anthill that is directing southwest.

According to Lakatos, for inductivism, theories must be shown clearly form facts or must be gathered, by deduction or induction, from theories already shown that is true(Lakatos, p. 92). From this point, it is controversial that how to reach scientific and valid knowledge. This problem is maybe much more important in our age than it was in 18^th century; since, 20^th century has revolutionary changes in physics and of course, geometry. Quantum Mechanics was a prohibited proposal for orthodox Newtonians. The conflict between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics or an effort to bring the two together was also a subject to a great debate. Throughout all these disputes, scientific method or logical methodology of science was also an important question besides physics.

In 1930’s, Karl R. Popper came up with his methodology. It was so controversial that it was regarded the most important idea after Hume who had manifested the problem itself. Also, so controversial that Popper claims that his ideas are about to solve an important philosophical problem, problem of induction. His solution proposal is a method that is called falsification. Popper uses his method to determine whether a theory or a hypothesis is scientific or not. He uses the falsifiability tool. That a theory is falsifiable does not mean it is false; however, it shows that if it is false, this can be proved by experiments or by observations. For Popper’s case;

“Ali’s theory on the anthills is falsifiable since there is always a chance to find an anthill that is directing south or else. Therefore, it is a scientific theory even if it is deductively invalid. After enough observations and enough data gathered if this theory had not been falsified, then it is accepted as valid until a contrary observation or data found.”

Verificationism which opposes that unfalsifiable statements could not be scientific, however, claims that a statement or a theory is simply verifiable if it is based on a observable emprical data. Yet, Ayer, a member of Vienna Circle and a logical positivist, suggest in his book “Language, Truth and Logic(1936)” that there are two main verifications; strong and weak. Strong verification is shown by emprical data to be true: “There is at least one anthill in the countryside.” Weak verification is not truly verifiable such as: “Tonight, there will be a full moon.”

While Popper thinks that he has already solved the problem of induction, Kuhn released his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(1962). In his book, Kuhn claims that when a scientist researches he takes the data and the observations as current paradigm takes. Since he was educated in that paradigmatic approach, even if he finds an important result contrary to what paradigm says, he tries to adjust the result to the paradigm.

III. AFTER SSR AND IMPORTANT DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN KUHN AND FALSIFICATIONISTS

After SSR, author Kuhn was subject to a bunch of questions raised from scientists from all disciplines or from philosophers of science. After seven years that the book had been released, Kuhn write an extended prologue about his philosophy and epistemology, actually he was got to. For example Feyerabend claimed that, in “Consolations for the Specialist”, “[Kuhn’s] ideology of science could only give comfort to the most narrow-minded and the most conceited kind of specialism.” Feyerabend also argues that it would restrain the growth of knowledge. Still today, clash between Kuhnian perspective of scientific progress or mainly Popperian view is an important issue. For instance, an important philosopher of science and an intellectual creationist Steve Fuller says, on Kuhn’s perspective, that: “Scientific revolutions succeed not beacuse the same people are persuaded of a new way of seeing things(a la Popper) but because different people’s views start to count.”(Fuller, p.37). This is true as well as it is ‘sarcastic’ in a way. Fuller can be argued that way: if Copernicus had changed the perspective of cosmology of the church, then there would be no inquisition for Galileo. To be more clear, it is not the church that changes its way of thinking or seeing this but the others like Kepler or Galileo, or even Bruno, develops another perspective and try to prove them. After their perspective commonly accepted against the church, that is the milestone that paradigm of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic Cosmology- the cosmology that church adopted – was broken and the paradigm that Copernican Revolution developed was accepted, also by the church gradually.

Besides, there is some scientist that in a same manner towards Popper also. To examplify, quotes from Bartley: ”Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue.” However, according to Lakatos, Popper’s theory was standing on a basis that is “a philosophically flawless version of conventionalism”(Bartley, p.95). Lakatos, further, argues that Popper criticised inductivism owing to the fact that there would be no valid inductive inference and Duhemian conventionalism due to its intuitive simplicity(Lakatos, p.96). To sum up falsificationism, a theory must be made to conflict with a basic statement, predict novel facts to be scientific and also, must be eliminated if it conflicts with an accepted basic statement(Lakatos, p.97). That’s why Popper’s solution used as a demarcation tool, a watershed. In Logik der Forschung(1934), Karl Popper simply tries to show that “ The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability”(1959). The main difference between “paradigm shift” and “falsifiability” is the way they consider the data, experimental observations. Falsifiability says that through the history of science, scientists, for example Galileo, saw that observations show Aristotelian physics is undefendable then there must be a theory with greater explanatory power must be developed. Galileo falsified Aristo’s physics and Newton built up a new theory until it was falsified by Einstein’s. However, this is not the case in history and Kuhn’s issue was exactly this. For example, Copernicus, a canon that believes strictly in Scripture, its most important expositors and their conjunction of Aristo and Christianity to explain the heavens and physics. Moreover, he started his work to save the phenomena, to save what he believed in, to adjust what he sees to what he was taught, the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic paradigm. Kuhn considers paradigms, also those are not related to the church, as dogmatic concepts, as concepts that are nearly impossible to break. For Copernicus’ case, he still found it very difficult to say something that he found against the paradigm after nearly thirty years of work. When he publishes the work, it was not the church, who has the ‘approved’ idea of cosmology, that changes its minds; furthermore, they reject the idea of Revolutions in a realistic way. Against what Fuller have said, it is a clear evidence of “different people’s views start to count.” If we could accept the Popper’s theory, then one cannot accept Copernicus’s cosmology since even if it predicts novel facts, “it conflicts with an accepted basic statement”, the statement of Ptolemy, of church. Then, should we eliminate Copernicus’ perspective?

Copernicus showed that then recent theory is not enough to explain the phenomena. After that, Kepler set up a physics and a cause to Copernicus. He and especially Galileo worked against the paradigm, but no physical entity bring them to that point. It was a theoretical entity that Copernicus set up against his will but proven to be true. To bringing down a paradigm and set up a new one is not easy, in our example’s case it took nearly 150 years from Copernicus to Newton, 150 years that led to Newtonian paradigm.

IV. CONCLUSION

To conclude, after Hume had set up the question-the problem of induction, it became a very important subject of philosopohy of science as we discussed above. However, this problem became not only a problem of science, philosopohy or epistemology; it surely determines one’s perspective to the world, to perception or to psychology and politics. At one side we have a historical look to the science with the concept of paradigm, how science was develeloped, how science overcame the obstacles of social life and actually all paradigms come as a revolution. The other side claims that it offers a solution to all our problems and-let me have a subjective comment- destroys with its solution what I actually think as some of the most important solutions to the modern humanity-Marxism and psychoanalysis. This must be a choice of viewpoint to the life. Of course, in objective perspective of history of science, it is clear to see that falsificationism is not a method used by sciencists through the history but it is an ad hoc solution for the examples that Popper gave and an ad hoc solution to adopt the ideas of Popper(his naturally subjective, even political ideas) to philosophy by using history of science.

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayer, A J (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. London, UK: Victor Golancz Ltd..

Bartley, W W (1976).Biology & evolutionary epistemology. Philosophia. 6, 463-494.

Hume, D (1748). An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. London, UK

Fuller, S (2003). Kuhn vs. Popper. Duxford, Cambridge, UK: Icon Books Ltd..

Kuhn, T S (2006). Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı. İstanbul, Türkiye: Kırmızı Yayınları.

Lakatos, I (1970).History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1970, 91-136.

Popper, K R (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, UK: Routledge.